Quote:
Originally Posted by coralway
Your statement MAY be true IF - and this is a big IF - welfare recipients CHOOSE to be on welfare.
If recipients choose to be on welfare, then there may be some validity to requiring drug testing. I believe there is a very strong body of evidence to support the argument most welfare recipients have no choice.
|
Yes. They DO have a choice. You ALWAYS have choices.
Nobody is rounding up indigents and forcing them to take public money. These are people who, for whatever reason, have chosen this (presumably) last resort.
I'm not saying they chose to be poor or anything like that. I'm saying they chose to go to a public office and seek relief.
My daughter is an example of this. She's 19 and works but cannot afford everything in her life - school, car, rent. So what did she choose? She chose to live with her mother despite some family friction. She chooses dealing with the friction so that she can make her car payments and keep going to school rather than giving up school.
She could easily choose public assistance and chooses NOT to.
I understand that people feel as though they may have no other choice, but no outside influence is forcing them.
Besides, to use an old saying, if they have money for drugs, tobacco or alcohol, they don't need mine.
My daughter lives under a 'no drugs' rule (not that it's an issue since she's very anti-drug) and that comes from her mother (and it would come from me if she lived under my roof). Why should relief recipients be exempt?